Ayodhya debate

From Dharmapedia Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Ayodhya debate is a political, historical and socio-religious debate that was prevalent especially in the 1990s in South Asia.Hindu partisan historians say that in the year 1527 the Muslim invader Babur came down from Ferghana in Central Asia and attacked the Hindu King of Chittodgad, Rana Sangrama Singh at Sikri and with the help of cannons and artillery (used in India for the first time) overcame Rana Sangrama Singh and his allies. After this victory, Babar decided to spread terror among the subjugated Hindu population. His general, Mir Baqi was incharge of the region. Mir Baqi came to Ayodhya in 1528 and gave special attention to the main and biggest temple in the town. This was the temple which was built on the place where Samrat Shri Ramachandra, an ancient King of India was born. Samrat Shri Ramachandra was (and still is) revered by the devout among the Hindus as a god, also referred to as Rama, believed by Hindus to be an avatar of Vishnu. Babar, whose general Mir Baqi allegedly destroyed this temple at Ayodhya, built by the Hindus to commemorate their king Samrat Ramchandra. Mir Baqi built a mosque at the site of the destroyed temple. This was called the Babri Masjid (Mosque), named after King Babar.

The Babri Mosque was a mosque constructed by order of the first Mughal emperor of India, Babur, in Ayodhya in the 16th century. Before the 1940s, the mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan ("mosque of the birthplace").[1] The mosque stood on the Ramkot ("Rama's fort") hill (also called Janamsthan ("birthplace"). Accoring to Hindus, it was built on the birthplace of the deity Rama after the Mughal rulers demolished the Ram Mandir ("Temple of Rama") on its location as they had done to many other temples around India.[2] It was destroyed by Hindu activists in a riot on December 6, 1992.

The mosque there, the Babri Masjid, was destroyed during a political rally which turned into a riot on 6 December 1992. A subsequent land title case was lodged in the Allahabad High Court, the verdict of which was pronounced on 30 September 2010. In the judgment, the three judges of the Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres (1.12 ha) of Ayodhya land be divided into three parts, with one third going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha, one third going to the Sunni Waqf Board, and the remaining one third going to Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious denomination. While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site.[3][4]

The five-judge Supreme Court bench heard the title dispute cases from August to October 2019.[5][6] On 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, announced their verdict; it vacated the previous decision and ruled that the land belonged to the government based on tax records.[7] It further ordered the land to be handed over to a trust to build the Hindu temple. It also ordered the government to give an alternate five-acre tract of land to the Sunni Waqf Board to build the mosque.[8]

Ayodhya dispute
Archaeology of Ayodhya
Babri Masjid
Demolition of the Babri Masjid
Ram Janmabhoomi
2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack
Organizations
Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha
Vishva Hindu Parishad
Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas
Bharatiya Janata Party
Liberhan Commission
Nirmohi Akhara
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
Sunni Waqf Board
People
Babur
Ashok Singhal
Atal Bihari Vajpayee
L. K. Advani
Kalyan Singh
Murli Manohar Joshi
Uma Bharti

On 5 February 2020, the Government of India made the announcement for the trust named as Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra.

Religious background

The land on which the medieval mosque, Babri Masjid, stood is traditionally considered by Hindus to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity, Rama, and is at the core of the Ayodhya dispute.[9]

Ram Janmabhoomi

Main article: Ram Janmabhoomi

Ayodhya is the birthplace of the Maryaada Purushottam, i.e., ideal person, Lord Rama, legendary son of King Dashrath and queen Koshalya, who is also worshiped by millions as an Avatar of Vishnu. The Skandh Puraan, an over 2000-year-old work of reference for ancient pilgrimage sites in India, narrates in detail the different temples in Ayodhya, including the one commemorating the birthplace of Rama.

Ayodhya is one of seven most holy places for Hindus in India whereas Varanasi is considered as Holiest of the seven holy cities for Hindus.[10]

A Kṣetra is a sacred ground, a field of active power, a place where Moksha, i.e. final release from cycle of rebirth, can be obtained. The Garuda Purana enumerates seven cities as giver of Moksha, They are Ayodhya, Mathura, Māyā, Kāsi, Kāñchī, Avantikā and Dvārāvatī.[11]

History of the Babri Mosque

Main article: Babri Mosque
File:Babri Mosque Indai 1.jpg
A picture of the Babri Mosque.

When the Mughal invader Babur came down from Kabul in 1525, he first defeated Ibrahim Lodi at the first battle of Panipat and then the Rajput King of Chittorgarh, Rana Sangram Singh at Khanwa, making pioneering use of cannon and light cavalry. After these triumphs, Babar took over a substantial part of northern India.

One of his generals, Mir Baki Khan came to Ayodhya in 1528 and after reportedly destroying[12] a pre-existing temple of Rama at the site, built the "Janmasthan", i. e., "Birthplace" Mosque.[13] Mir Baki, after building the mosque, named it Babri Masjid.[14] The Babri Mosque was one of the largest mosques in Uttar Pradesh, a state in India with some 31 million Muslims.[15]

For Hindu nationalists, Babar's name has become synonymous with the history of tyranny and oppression.[16]

Ram Janmabhoomi (Rama's birthplace)

Main article: Ram Janmabhoomi

Rama is one of the most widely worshipped Hindu deities and is considered the seventh incarnation of god Vishnu.[17] According to the Ramayana, Rama was born in Ayodhya to Queen Kaushalya and King Dasharatha.[18]

According to the Garuda Purana, a Hindu religious text, Ayodhya is one of seven sacred sites where Moksha, or a final release from the cycle of death and rebirth, may be obtained.[19] The Ayodhya Mahatmya, described as a "pilgrimage manual" of Ayodhya,[20] composed and collected from the 11th century onwards,[21] traced the growth of the Rama cult in the second millennium AD. The original recension of the text, dated to the period between 11th and 14th centuries,[22] mentions the janmasthana (birthplace) as a pilgrimage site.[23] A later recension adds many more places in Ayodhya and the entire fortified town, labelled Ramadurga ("Rama's fort"), as pilgrimage sites.[24][note 1]

Babri Masjid (Mosque of Babur)

Main article: Babri Masjid

Babur was the first Mughal emperor of India and the founder of the Mughal empire. It is believed that one of his generals, Mir Baqi, built the Babri Masjid ("Babur's Mosque") in 1528 on his orders.[27] The belief came into currency since 1813–14, when the East India Company's surveyor Francis Buchanan reported that he found an inscription on the mosque walls which attested to this fact. He also recorded the local tradition, which believed that emperor Aurangzeb (r. 1658 – 1707) built the mosque after demolishing a temple dedicated to Rama.[28][29]

Between 1528 and 1668, no text mentioned the presence of a mosque at the site.[30] The earliest historical record of a mosque comes from Jai Singh II, a Rajput noble in the Mughal court, who purchased the land of the mosque and the surrounding area in 1717. His documents show a three-domed structure resembling the mosque, which is however labelled the "birthplace" (chhathi). In the courtyard can be seen a platform (chabutra) to which Hindu devotees are shown circumambulating and worshipping.[31] All these details were corroborated by the Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler half a century later.[32] Tieffenthaler also said that "The reason for this is that once upon a time, here was a house where Beschan [Vishnu] was born in the form of Ram."[33]

Both the Hindus and Muslims are said to have worshipped at the "mosque-temple", Muslims inside the mosque and Hindus outside the mosque but inside the compound. After the British took over the State, they put up a railing between the two areas to prevent disputes.[34] In 1949, after India's independence, an idol of Ram was placed inside the mosque, which triggered the dispute.[35]


Before the demolition

It was until about 1990 the standard view that an ancient Ram Janmabhoomi temple was demolished and replaced with the Babri Mosque. References such as the 1986 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica reported that "Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple".[36] According to the Hindu view, the ancient temple could have been destroyed on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur. This view is challenged by many Muslims and 'Marxist'[37].

Early historical surveys

In 1767, Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler recorded Hindus worshiping and celebrating Ramanavami at the site of the mosque. In 1788, Tieffenthaler's French works were published in Paris, the first to suggest that the Babri Mosque was on the birthplace of Rama,[38] saying that "Emperor Aurangzeb got demolished the fortress called Ramkot, and erected on the same place a Mahometan temple with three cuppolas" reclaimed by Hindus through numerous wars after death of Aurangzeb in 1707 A.D like they earlier fortified it during Jahangir's rule as Ramkot.

During the 19th century, the Hindus in Ayodhya were recorded as continuing a tradition of worshiping Rama on the Ramkot hill. According to British sources, Hindus and Muslims from the Faizabad area worshiped together in the Babri Mosque complex in the 19th century until about 1855. P. Carnegy wrote in 1870:

It is said that up to that time, the Hindus and Mohamedans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since the British rule a railing has been put up to prevent dispute, within which, in the mosque the Mohamedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.

— [39]

This platform was outside the disputed structure but within its precincts.

In 1858, the Muazzin of the Babri Mosque said in a petition to the British government that the courtyard had been used by Hindus for hundreds of years.[40]

The British recognized the religious and political tension between the Muslims and Hindus. An early census, taken in 1869, found the Hindu people to comprise 66.4 percent of the total population in Ayodhya, and a little over 60 percent in nearby Faizabad. The British contended that the Ayodhya area was primarily Hindu, not in regards to this census, but to the chief spiritual significance for the birthplace of Rama.[41]

Mahant Ram case

In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Ram moved the courts for permission to erect a temple just outside the Babri Mosque premises. Despite validating the claim of the petitioner, the Faizabad District Judge dismissed the case, citing the passage of time.[42] On 18 March 1886, the judge passed an order in which he wrote:[43]

I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the Masjid built by Emperor Babur stands on the border of Ayodhya, that is to say, to the west and south it is clear of habitations. It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to agree with the grievances. (Court verdict by Col. F.E.A. Chamier, District Judge, Faizabad (1886)


Historical background

Gupta period

In Buddha's time (600 B.C.) the present day Ayodhya was called Saketa and it was one of the 6 largest cities of North India. During the Gupta times, either Kumaragupta or Skandagupta made it their capital, after which it came to be called Ayodhya. Kalidasa wrote Raghuvamsa here, and referred to Gopratara tirtha (Guptar Ghat), where Rama was believed to have entered the waters of Saryu in his ascent to heaven. According to a local tradition recorded by Francis Buchanan and Alexander Cunningham, Ayodhya became desolate after Rama's ascent to heaven and "Vikramaditya" revived it. (In Raghuvamsa, Rama's son Kusa revived it.) Prabhavatigupta, the daughter of Chandragupta II, was a Rama devotee. Her son, Pravarasena II wrote Sethubandha, in which Rama was regarded as identical to Vishnu. He also built a temple to Rama at Pravarapura (Paunar near Ramtek) in about 450 A.D.[44]

Gahadavala period

After the Guptas, the capital of North India moved to Kannauj and Ayodhya fell into relative neglect. It was revived by the Gahadavalas, coming to power in the 11th century A.D. The Gahadavalas were Vaishnavas. They built several Vishnu temples in Ayodhya, five of which survived till the end of Aurangzeb's reign. Hans T. Bakker concludes that there might have been a temple at the supposed birth spot of Rama built by the Gahadavalas. In subsequent years, the cult of Rama developed within Vaishnavism, with Rama being regarded as the foremost avatar of Vishnu. Consequently, Ayodhya's importance as a pilgrimage centre grew. In particular, multiple versions of Ayodhya Mahatmya (magical powers of Ayodhya) prescibed the celebration of Ram Navami (the birthday of Rama).[45][46]

Mughal period

In modern times, a mosque was located at the supposed birth spot of Rama, which sat on a large mound in the centre of Ayodhya, called the Ramadurg or Ramkot (the fort of Rama). The mosque bore an inscription stating that it was built in 1528 by Mir Baqi on the orders of Babur.

According to an early 20th century text by Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar and the surrounding historical sources examined by historian Harsh Narain,[note 2] the young Babur came from Kabul to Awadh (Ayodhya) in disguise, dressed as a Qalandar (Sufi ascetic), probably as part of a fact-finding mission. Here he met the Sufi saints Shah Jalal and Sayyid Musa Ashiqan and took a pledge in return for their blessings for conquering Hindustan. The pledge is not spelled out in the 1981 edition of Abdul Ghaffar's book, but it is made clear that it is in pursuance of this pledge that he got the Babri mosque constructed after conquering Hindustan.[47] The original book was written in Persian by Maulvi Abdul Karim, a spiritual descendant of Musa Ashiqan, and it was translated into Urdu by Abdul Ghaffar, his grandson, with additional commentary. The older editions of Abdul Ghaffar's book contain more detail, which seems to have been excised in the 1981 edition. Lala Sita Ram of Ayodhya, who had access to the older edition in 1932, wrote, "The faqirs answered that they would bless him if he promised to build a mosque after demolishing the Janmasthan temple. Babur accepted the faqirs' offer and returned to his homeland."[48][49]

The fact that Babur came in the guise of a Qalandar is corroborated in Abdullah's Tarikh-i Dawudi, where it is detailed that he met the Sultan Sikandar Lodhi in Delhi in the same disguise.[50] The inscription on the Babri mosque also names him as Babur Qalandar.[51] Musa Ashiqan's grave is situated close to the Babri mosque site, whose shrine uses two of the same type of black basalt columns used in the Babri mosque, indicative of his role in the destruction of the prior temple.[52]

Tulsidas, who began writing the Ramcharit Manas in Ayodhya on Rama's birthday in 1574 (coming there from his normal residence in Varanasi) mentioned the "great birthday festival" in Ayodhya but made no mention of a mosque at Rama's birthplace.[53] Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak (1551–1602), who wrote Akbarnama, completing the third volume Ain-i Akbari in 1598, described the birthday festival in Ayodhya, the "residence of Rama" and the "holiest place of antiquity", but made no mention of a mosque.[54] William Finch, the English traveller that visited Ayodhya around 1611, and wrote about the "ruins of the Ranichand [Ramachand] castle and houses" where Hindus believed the great God "took flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world." He found pandas (Brahmin priests) in the ruins of the fort, who were recording the names of the pilgrims, a practice that was said to go back to antiquity. Again there was no mention of a mosque in his account.[55]

In modern times, we find a mosque at the supposed birth spot of Rama, which is on a large mound in the centre of Ayodhya, called the Ramadurg or Ramkot (the fort of Rama). The mosque bore an inscription stating that it was built in 1528 A.D. by Mir Baqi on the orders of Babur. How this mosque came into being is discussed in these sources:

  • Karim, Maulvi Abdul (1885). Tarikh-i Parnia Madinatul Awliya [Forgotten Events of Ayodhya] (in Persian). Lucknow. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  • Ghaffar, Maulvi Abdul (1981) [first published prior to 1932]. Gumgamashtah Halat-i Ajodhya [Forgotten Events of Ayodhya] (in Urdu). Lucknow: Nami Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  • Sita Ram, Avadh-vasi Lala (1932). Ayodhya ka Itihasa [History of Ayodhya] (in Hindi). Allahabad.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

According to them, the young Babur came from Kabul to Awadh (Ayodhya) in disguise, dressed as a Qalandar (sufi ascetic), probably as part of a fact-finding mission. Here he met the sufi saints Shah Jalal and Sayyid Musa Ashiqan and took a pledge in return for their blessings for conquering Hindustan. The pledge is not spelled out in the 1981 edition of Ghaffar's book, but it is made clear that it is in pursuance of this pledge that he got the Babri mosque constructed aftering conquering Hindustan.[56] The original book was written in Persian by Maulvi Abdul Karim, a spiritual descendant of Ashiqan, and it was translated into Urdu by his grandson Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar with additional commentary. The older editions of Ghaffar's book contain more detail which seems to have been excised in the 1981 edition. Lala Sita Ram, who had access to the older edition in 1932 wrote, "The faqirs answered that they would bless him if he promised to build a mosque after demolishing the Janmasthan temple. Babur accepted the faqirs' offer and returned to his homeland."[57][58]

The fact that Babur came in the guise of a Qalandar is corroborated in Abdullah's Tarikh-i Dawudi, where it is detailed that he met the Sultan Sikandar Lodhi in Delhi in the same disguise.[59] The inscription on the Babri mosque itself names him as Babur Qalandar.[60] Musa Ashiqan's grave is situated close to the Babri mosque site, whose shrine uses two of the black basalt columns with Hindu carvings used in the Babri mosque, indicative of his role in the destruction of the prior temple.[citation needed]

While we have had a mosque bearing an inscription to the effect that it was built on orders of Babur in 1528, there are no other records of the mosque from this period. The Babarnama (Chronicles of Babur) does not mention either the mosque or the destruction of a temple.[citation needed] Tulsidas, who began writing the Ramcharit Manas in Ayodhya on Rama's birthday in 1574 (coming there from his normal residence in Varanasi) mentioned the "great birthday festival" in Ayodhya but made no mention of a mosque at Rama's birth place.[61] Abul Fazl, who wrote Akbarnama, completing the third volume Ain-i Akbari in 1598, described the birthday festival in Ayodhya, the "residence of Rama" and the "holiest place of antiquity," but made no mention of a mosque.[62][63] William Finch, the English traveller that visited Ayodhya around 1611, and wrote about the "ruins of the Ranichand [Ramachand] castle and houses" where Hindus believed the great God "took flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world." He found pandas (Brahmin priests) in the ruins of the fort, who were recording the names of the pilgrims, a practice that was said to go back to antiquity.[64]

Late Mughal period

The first known report of a mosque appears in a book Sahifa-I-Chihil Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, said to have been written by a daughter of the emperor Bahadur Shah I (and granddaughter of Aurangzeb) in the early 18th century. It mentioned mosques having been constructed after demolishing the "temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh etc." Hindus are said to have called these demolished temples in Awadh "Sita Rasoi" (Sita's kitchen) and "Hanuman's abode." [65][66] It should be borne in mind that the mosques at Mathura and Banaras were built by Aurangzeb, not Babur.

Jai Singh II (popularly called "Sawai Jai Singh", 1688-1743) purchased land and established Jaisinghpuras in all Hindu religious centres in North India, including Mathura, Vrindavan, Banaras, Allahabad, Ujjain and Ayodhya. The documents of these activities have been preserved in the Kapad-Dwar collection in the City Palace Museum in Jaipur. Professor R. Nath, who has examined these records, concludes that Jai Singh had acquired the land of Rama Janmasthan in 1717. The ownership of the land was vested in the deity. The hereditary title of the ownership was recognized and enforced by the Mugal State from 1717. He also found a letter from a gumastha Trilokchand, dated 1723, stating that, while under the Muslim administration people had been prevented from taking a ritual bath in the Saryu river, the establishment of the Jaisinghpura has removed all impediments.[67]

The Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, who visited Awadh in 1766-1771, wrote, "Emperor Aurangzebe got the fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that it was constructed by 'Babor'. Fourteen black stone pillars of 5 span high, which had existed at the site of the fortress, are seen there. Twelve of these pillars now support the interior arcades of the mosque."[68] This ambiguity between Aurangzeb and Babur could be significant.[69] Tieffenthaler also wrote that Hindus worshipped a square box raised 5 inches above the ground, which was said to be called the "Bedi, i.e., the cradle." "The reason for this is that once upon a time, here was a house where Beschan [Vishnu] was born in the form of Ram." Rama's birthday was said to be celebrated every year, with a big gathering of people, which was "so famous in the entire India."[70][71]

Summary

It can be seen from the historical outline that Ayodhya became a pilgrimage centre devoted to Rama in the 16th century, if not earlier. The site of the Babri Masjid continued to be called "Rama's fort," and was said to be in ruins for at least some of the time. It nevertheless continued to attract Hindu pilgrims. In the 18th century, a belief took shape that this site contained Rama's birth spot as well as Sita's kitchen.


Politics

Many Indian observers see the controversy surrounding this mosque within the framework of Hindu fundamentalism and Hindu Revivalism. It was commonly believed by Hindus until about 1990 that the mosque stood on an ancient Hindu temple, though some commentators disagree and say that although the judiciary has been debating on the dispute of Babri Masjid (mosque) in Ayodhya for more than 40 years, it had remained a nonissue until the mid-1980s [1] [archive]. The Encyclopædia Britannica of 1989 reported that the Babri Mosque stood "on a site traditionally identified" as an earlier temple dedicated to Rama's birthplace. [72] According to their view, the ancient temple could have been destroyed on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur. This view is challenged by the Muslims, Indian secular, Marxist [73] and mainstream Indian historians since the early 1990s.

The excavation began on March 12, 2003 on the acquired land on the high court's order and by August 7, 2003 when it ended, the ASI team had made 1360 discoveries. A bench, comprising Justice S R Alam, Justice Bhanwar Singh and Justice Khemkaran, had asked the ASI to submit the report and as per the order, the Archaeological Survey of India submitted its final report in the Allahabad high court[74]. The 574-page ASI report consisting of written opinions, maps and drawings was opened before the full Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court. The report said there was archaeological evidence of "a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural activities from the 10th century onwards". The ASI report said there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50x30 metres in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure. In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat foundation below calcrete blocks topped by sandstone blocks were found. The area below the disputed site remained a place for public use for a long time till the Mughal period when the disputed structure was built which was confined to a limited area and the population settled around it as evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material including pottery. The report said the human activity at the site dates back to 13th century BC on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of the site[75]. A round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of this level, according to the report. The report said the Sunga period (second-first century BC) comes next in order of the cultural occupation at the site followed by the Kushan period. During the early medieval period (11-12th century AD) a huge structure of nearly 50 metres north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived as only four of the 50 pillar bases exposed during the excavation belonged to this level with a brick crush floor. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it. The architectural members of the earlier short-lived massive structure with stencil-cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure which has a huge pillared hall different from residential structures providing sufficient evidence of construction of public usages which remained under existence for a long time during the period. The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century that the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.[75]

After the demolition of the mosque in 1992, Professor Ram Sharan Sharma along with historians Suraj Bhan, M.Athar Ali and Dwijendra Narayan Jha wrote the Historian's report to the nation saying that the assumption that there was a temple at the disputed site was mistaken, and no valid reason to destroy the mosque.[76] The 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement came down heavily on these "eminent" historians, with one of the judges remarking that he was "surprised to see in the zeal of helping… the parties in whose favour they were appearing, these witnesses went ahead… and wrote a totally new story".[77]


Hindu view

Historians say that in the year 1527 the Muslim invader Babur came down from Ferghana in Central Asia and attacked the Hindu King of Chittodgad, Rana Sangrama Singh at Sikri and with the help of cannons and artillery (used in India for the first time) overcame Rana Sangrama Singh and his allies.

After this victory, Babar decided to spread terror among the subjugated Hindu population. His general, Mir Baqi was incharge of the region. Mir Baqi came to Ayodhya in 1528 and gave special attention to the main and biggest temple in the town. This was the temple which was built on the place where Samrat Shri Ramachandra, an ancient King of India was born. Samrat Shri Ramachandra was (and still is) revered by the devout among the Hindus as a god, also referred to as Rama, believed by Hindus to be an avatar of Vishnu.

Babar, whose general Mir Baqi allegedly destroyed this temple at Ayodhya, built by the Hindus to commemorate their king Samrat Ramchandra. Mir Baqi built a mosque at the site of the destroyed temple. This was called the Babri Masjid (Mosque), named after King Babar.

The claim of the destruction of this temple and the erection of a mosque in its place is also mentioned in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The advocates say that many Indians - and even many of the educated Indians - are unaware of this truth. Indian History books at School and College do not tell the story in its true detail. Hindu advocates allege that the Government of India has 'shamelessly' pandered to the muslims in this and other issues in order to secure the minority electoral bloc as part of their partisan vote bank politics, the VHP especially voicing this concern.

Advocates also allege that the excessive sypmathy for muslims in this issue is due to a zeitgeist of Pseudo-secularism in Indian society brought about by communist thinking, where struggles between Hindus and Muslims are viewed as a "class struggle" rather than a communal one. This identification of muslims as an "opressed underclass" are viewed as fallacious, since many Indian muslims are quite wealthy and well-represented in many walks of life.

They claim that the Muslims claims to the region are unfounded, in violation of common law and based on the beliefs and practices of Islamic Fundamentalism. They allege that this is part of a malicious agenda of hate against Hindus and is an attempt to delegitimize the Hindu ethos in India.

Until 1989 when the BJP made into a political issue there had been no question about the site’s history [2] [archive]. All the written sources, whether Hindu, Muslim or European, were in agreement about the pre-existence of a Rama temple at the site. “Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple”, according to the 1989 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry “Ayodhya”. However, this text was changed in subsequent editions. Neither was there any document contradicting this scenario: no account of a forest chopped down to make way for the mosque (already unlikely in the centre of an ancient town), no sales contract of real estate to the mosque’s builder, nothing of the kind. By contrast, there were testimonies of Hindus bewailing and Muslims boasting of the replacement of the temple with a mosque; and of Hindus under Muslim rule coming as close as possible to the site in order to celebrate Rama’s birthday every year in April, in continuation of the practice at the time when the temple stood.

In case authors of testimonies may be unreliable, there was also the archaeological evidence: in the 1970s, a team of the Archaeological Survey of India led by Prof. B.B. Lal dug out some trenches just outside the mosque and found rows of pillar-bases which must have supported a larger building predating the mosque. Moreover, in the mosque itself, small black pillars with Hindu sculptures had been incorporated, a traditional practice in mosques built in forcible replacement of infidel temples to flaunt the victory of Islam over Paganism.

The only remaining question about the site was its status in the period 1192-1528. In 1192 and the subsequent years, practically all the Hindu temples and Buddhist monasteries in North India were demolished by Mohammed Ghori and his Turkish invaders. It is impossible that the medieval temple at the site could have survived until 1528. The most likely scenario is the one well-attested at another famous temple site: the Somnath temple in Gujarat. No less than nine times did Hindus reclaim it as a temple, until Muslims retook it and turned it into a mosque again. Since Ayodhya was a provincial capital of the Delhi Sultanate, opportunities for wresting the site from Muslim control were certainly more limited than in the case of the outlying Somnath temple. Then again, the frequent infighting among the Muslim elite may have given rebellious Hindus some opportunities too. From peculiarities in the architecture of the Babri Masjid, art historians on both sides of the debate (Sushil Srivastava, R. Nath) have deduced that the main part of the structure had been built well before the Moghul invasion, probably in the 14th century. In that case, the tradition that it was built by Mir Baqi may be based on the following scenario: towards the end of the Sultanate period, Hindus may have managed to recapture the site and to turn it into a functioning temple, until Babar and his lieutenant Mir Baqi firmly imposed Muslim control again and gave some finishing touches to the mosque architecture in replacement of any Hindu elements that had come to adorn it. But this must for now be kept inside speculative brackets. What is certain is that a major Hindu temple at the site was demolished by Islamic iconoclasm and replaced with a mosque symbolizing the victory of Islam over Infidelism. Of that, evidence is plentiful and of many types.

The Hindu Nationalist movement has been pressing for reclaiming these Muslim buildings and calls this period a period of Hindu slavery and foreign rule. This is often unpalatable to the minority Muslim community and secularists who consider this period as culturally Indian noting that these rulers made India their own home and enriched India's varied traditions.

The Hindu nationalists and some western scholars believe that more than 3000 places of Muslim worship have been built over Hindu & Jain temples[citation needed] and in the immediate VHP, RSS, Bajrang Dal are asking for three of them, Ram Janmbhumi -Ayodhya, Kashi Vishwanath- Varanasi and Krishna Janmbhumi - Mathura .[78] Forced by this situation and in the eyes of this movement, engaged in the so called politics of Minority Appeasement, Congress government under P.V.Narsinharao enacted a law to maintain status quo of all the religious places as on 1947 except Ramjanmbhumi- Babri Masjid which is sub judice.

The legal case continues on the title deed of the land tract which is for the major part a Muslim trust (Wakf Board) or government controlled property; while the Muslim parties have not agreed to hand over the land (not unlike the Masjid Shaheedganj case in Lahore) even if it is proven a temple existed and demanding it be proven that it is indeed Ramjanmbhumi (i.e. Ram was born on this site), the Hindu side wants a law in parliament to have it constructed saying faith in the existence of Ram Janmabhoomi can not be decided in a court of law.

Muslim views

Muslim claims over the site are largely represented by the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee, demanding the restoration of the site and the mosque. It also holds that the case should be decided by the courts and if it is proved that a Hindu Temple existed at the spot the same will be handed over to the Hindu party; while the Hindu parties have been asking the minority Muslims to show magnanimity by handing over the land for the construction of the temple.Some Muslim members of the Hindu nationalist party BJP do not share the views of the Babri Masjid Action Committee like Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, president of the so called Muslim Youth Conference, an organisation known for its cooperation with the Hindu parties but equally unpopular with the Muslims who believe he is not Muslim, he said: "It is the duty of every nationalist Indian to protect the birthplace of Lord Rama to save India's honour, prestige and cultural heritage.... Anti-national and communal activities of Muslim fundamentalists are a blot on the entire community... It is the duty of all nationalist Muslims to expose such designs and accept the truth.” (Indian Express, 21/9/1990.)

Hindu parties have also cited that a Muslim scholar Asghar Ali Engineer wrote: "The Muslims, in my opinion, should show magnanimity and [make] a noble gesture of gifting away the mosque... (“Communalism and Communal Violence in India (Ajanta Publ., Delhi 1989), p.320.)However, a majority of Muslims question this idea saying as minority community and thereby deprived - they should themselves be shown magnanimity.

One option discussed was also to build the temple next to the mosque or to relocate the mosque to another site (many mosques in Islamic countries have been relocated for reasons such as road expansion).However, Indian Muslim parties claim that the place of prayer is what is constituted by the mosque and not the structure.

Muslims have claimed that this issue is just the crest of an iceberg. The Hindu parties whether shunning violence or doing it are just waiting for another moment to repatriate other Muslim places of worship. They cite many places where actions by the right wing Hindu party BJP and its affiliate religious organisations have either led to the closure of these places of worship to the Muslims or partial curtailment of the prayers to a few days in a week or limiting the number of people who could perform the prayers.

Secularist view

A large number of prominent people, many of them sympathisers of the Communist/Congress party oppose the destruction of the Babri Mosque e.g. Anand Patwardhan, Gyanendra Pandey, Pujari Laldas etc. But it is claimed by some other Hindus associated with the BJP led movement that at the time the structure was felled, it did touch a chord with millions of Hindus who looked to this incident as a fountainhead of Hindu religious nationalism in India. Muslims on the other hand regarded this as a black day for the Indian nationhood and Indian secularism. While Muslims observe December 6 , when this historic mosque and monument was felled as a Black day, Patriotic Hindus observe this as the Shourya Divas - Victory Day.

The situation regarding the Ram Janmabhoomi has been compared to the Temple Mount controversies and claims in Israel by the Middle East scholar and Islam critic Daniel Pipes [3] [archive]. In particular, Pipes writes:

"Ayodhya prompts several thoughts relating to the Temple Mount. It shows that the Temple Mount dispute is far from unique. Moslems have habitually asserted the supremacy of Islam through architecture, building on top of the monuments of other faiths (as in Jerusalem and Ayodhya) or appropriating them (e.g. the Ka'ba in Mecca and the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople)."

Nobel Laureate V. S. Naipaul praised Hindu Nationalists for "reclaiming India's Hindu heritage"[79] and the repatriation of the Ramjanmabhoomi was a "welcome sign that Hindu pride was re-asserting itself"[80]

Excavations

Archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1970, 1992 and 2003 in and around the disputed site have found evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site.[81] In 2003, by the order of an Indian High Court, the Archaeological Survey of India was asked to conduct a more in-depth study and an excavation to ascertain whether the type of structure that was beneath the rubble indicated definite proof of a temple under the mosque.[82] However, it could not be ascertained if it was a Rama temple, as the remnants had more resemblance to a Shiva temple.[82] In the words of ASI researchers, they discovered "distinctive features associated with... temples of north India". Excavations further yielded:

stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of a divine couple and carved architectural features, including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapota-pali ["dove-house" crown-work], doorjamb with semi-circular shrine pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranala (water chute) in the north and 50 pillar bases in association with a huge structure[83]

Before the archaeological opinion was published, there were some differing viewpoints. In his Communal History and Rama's Ayodhya, written prior to the ASI researches, Professor Ram Sharan Sharma writes, "Ayodhya seems to have emerged as a place of religious pilgrimage in medieval times. Although chapter 85 of the Vishnu Smriti lists as many as fifty-two places of pilgrimage, including towns, lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., it does not include Ayodhya in this list."[84] Sharma also notes that Tulsidas, who wrote the Ramcharitmanas in 1574 at Ayodhya, does not mention it as a place of pilgrimage. This suggests that there was no significant Hindu temple at the site of the Babri Mosque, or that it had ceased to be one, before the mosque was built. After the demolition of the mosque in 1992, Professor Ram Sharan Sharma along with historians Suraj Bhan, M. Athar Ali and Dwijendra Narayan Jha wrote the Historians' report to the nation, saying that the assumption that there was a temple at the disputed site was mistaken, and that there was no valid reason to destroy the mosque.[85] One of the judges of the Allahabad High Court in 2010 criticised the independent experts who had appeared on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board including Suvira Jaiswal, Supriya Verma, Shireen F. Ratnagar and Jaya Menon. The witnesses withered under scrutiny and were discovered to have made "reckless and irresponsible kind of statements". He also pointed out that the independent witnesses were all connected, while adding that their opinions were offered without making a proper investigation, research or study into the subject.[86]

Udit Raj's Buddha Education Foundation claimed that the structure excavated by ASI in 2003 was a Buddhist stupa destroyed during and after the Muslim invasion of India.[87]

The excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India were used as evidence by the court that the predating structure was a massive Hindu religious building.[88][89][90][86][91]

Political fallout

The descriptions of temple destructions in Muslim chronicles have been the matter of some controversy.

Moreover, the Shah Bano controversy that turned down the divorce provisions of Muslim personal laws in India and the aftermath in which the Indian parliament enacted a law to reinstate them contributed to some Hindus claiming that Muslims were enjoying a favoured status. Some observers see this as the major factor for the flare of this movement at the same time the Muslims regarded this as an attempt to curtail their religious freedom.

Many terror attacks by banned jehadi outfits like IM cited demolition of Babri Mosque as an excuse for terrorist attacks[92][93]. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, many Hindu women were raped, hundreds of Hindu homes and temples were destroyed[94][95][96].

2002 Gujarat violence

Riots in Gujarat in 2002 were caused as a consequence to Godhra Carnage where more than 57 Hindu Kar Sevaks were burnt to death while returning from the Ayodhya site in a train. This was perpetrated allegedly by the Ghanchi Muslims of Gujarat, which has, as of October 2006, been established by the Gujarat High Court. The riots led violence resulting in around 1000 deaths,mostly Muslims. As a consequence, the Gujarat government was severely chastized for ignoring (as well as allegedly endorsing) the riots. On the same year, Muslim terrorists led the Akshardham Temple attack on the Hindu temple in Gujarat. Also. the riots were followed by the rise of Wahhabi Islamic Fundamentalism and terrorism among Gujarati Muslims[4] [archive].

Timeline

Year Date Event[97]
1528 According to the inscription on its walls, the Babri Masjid constructed on orders of emperor Babur. Local tradition says it was built after demolishing (the ruins of) a temple at the birth spot of Rama.[45][9]
1611 English merchant William Finch recorded Rama's castle and houses being visited by pilgrims.[55]
1717 Rajput noble Jai Singh II purchased the land of the mosque and vested it in the deity. Hindus worship Rama idols outside the mosque.[31]
1768 Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler witnessed the mosque and recorded the local tradition that it was built by Aurangzeb, while some said Babur built it.[98]
1853 The first recorded communal clashes over the site date to this year.
1859 The colonial British administration put a fence around the site, denominating separate areas of worship for Hindus and Muslims. That is how it stood for about 90 years.
1949 December Idols were placed inside the mosque. Both sides to the dispute filed civil suits. The government locked the gates, saying the matter was sub judice and declared the area disputed. The civil suits were filed for ownership of the Plot no 583 of the area.
1961 Case filed in Indian courts against forceful occupation of the Babri Mosque and placing of idols within it.
1984 The movement to build a temple at the site, which Hindus claimed was the birthplace of Lord Ram, gathered momentum when Hindu groups formed a committee to spearhead the construction of a temple at the Ramjanmabhoomi site.
1986 A district judge ordered the gates of the mosque to be opened after 37 years (see 1949 above) and allowed Hindus to worship inside the "disputed structure". A Babri Mosque Action Committee was formed as Muslims protested the move to allow Hindu prayers at the site. The gates were opened in less than an hour after the court decision.
1989 The clamour for building a Ram temple was growing. In February, VHP proclaimed that a Shila or a stone will be established for construction of temple near the area. In November, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad laid foundations of a temple on land adjacent to the "disputed structure" in presence of Home Minister Sh Boota Singh and then Chief Minister Sh ND Tiwari. There were sporadic clashes in the country such as Bhagalpur in Bihar.
1990 Sh V P Singh became the Prime Minister of India with support of BJP which had won 58 seats in the election, a massive improvement from its last tally of 2 seats. The then BJP president Lal Krishna Advani took out a cross-country rathyatra to garner support for the move to build a Ram temple at the site. On 23 October, he was arrested in Bihar during the yatra, following which BJP took back its support to the government. Sh Chandrashekhar became the Prime Minister of India with support of the Congress. On 30 October, many were gunned down by the police on orders of the then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav, when they gathered in Ayodhya as participants of the Rath-Yatra; their bodies were thrown in the river Saryu.[99][100][101][102]
1991 Congress came to power at center after elections in 1991, while BJP became major opposition party in center and came to power in many states such as Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Kalyan Singh became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. State government acquired 2.77 acre land in the area and gave it on lease to RamJanmBhoomi Nyas Trust. The Allahbad High Court stopped any permanent construction activity in the area. Kalyan Singh publicly supported the movement while Central Government took no action to curb the increasing tensions. In spite of the High Court judgement, disputed area was leveled.
1992 Kalyan Singh took steps to support the movement such as making entry into area easier, promising no firing on Karsevaks, opposing decision of central government to send Central Police force in the area, etc. In July, several thousand Karsevaks assembled in the area and the work for maintenance of temple started. This activity was stopped after intervention of the prime minister. Meetings started between Babri Masjid Action Committee and VHP leaders in presence of the home minister. On 30 October, Dharam Sansad of VHP proclaimed in Delhi that the talks have failed and Karseva will presume from 6 December. Central Government was considering the deployment of central police forces in the area and dissolution of state government but in the end decided against it. The case was being heard in the Supreme Court which told that State Government is responsible for ensuring law and order in the area. The government was discussing it in Cabinet Committee meeting and Rashtriya Ekta Parishad. BJP boycotted the Parishad. The Allahbad High Court was hearing the matter of legality of structure of foundation laid in 1989.
1992 6 December The Babri Mosque was demolished by a gathering of near 200,000 Karsevaks. Communal riots across India followed.
1992 16 December Ten days after the demolition, the Congress government at the Centre, headed by PV Narasimha Rao, set up a commission of inquiry under Justice Liberhan.
1993 Three months after being constituted, the Liberhan Commission began investigations into who and what led to the demolition of the Babri Mosque.
2001 Tensions rose on the anniversary of the demolition of the mosque as the VHP reaffirmed its resolve to build a temple at the site.
2002 27 February At least 58 people were killed in Godhra, Gujarat, in an attack on a train believed to be carrying Hindu volunteers from Ayodhya. Riots followed in the state and over 2000 people were unofficially reported to have died in these.
2003 The court ordered a survey to find out whether a temple to Lord Ram existed on the site. In August, the survey presented evidence of a temple under the mosque. Muslim groups disputed the findings.
2003 September A court ruled that seven Hindu leaders, including some prominent BJP leaders, should stand trial for inciting the destruction of the Babri Mosque.
2004 November An Uttar Pradesh court ruled that an earlier order which exonerated LK Advani for his role in the destruction of the mosque should be reviewed.
2007 The Supreme Court refused to admit a review petition on the Ayodhya dispute.
2009 The Liberhan Commission, which was instituted ten days after the demolition of the Babri Mosque in 1992, submitted its report on 30 June — almost 17 years after it began its inquiry. Its contents were not made public.
2010 30 September The Allahabad High Court pronounces its verdict on four title suits relating to the Ayodhya dispute on 30 September 2010. Ayodhya land to be divided into three parts. ⅓ goes to Ram Lalla represented by Hindu Maha Sabha, ⅓ to Sunni Wakf Board, ⅓ goes to Nirmohi Akhara.[103]
2010 December The Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha and Sunni Waqf Board moved to the Supreme Court of India, challenging part of the Allahabad High Court’s verdict.[104][105]
2011 9 May Supreme Court of India stayed the High Court order splitting the disputed site in three parts and said that status quo will remain.
2019 6 August The 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, of Supreme Court started final hearing on the case.[106]
2019 16 October Final hearing in the Supreme Court ends. The bench reserved the final judgment. The bench granted three days to contesting parties to file written notes on 'moulding of relief' or narrowing down the issues on which the court is required to adjudicate.[107]
2019 9 November Final judgment delivered.[108] The Supreme Court ordered the land to be handed over to a trust to build the Ram temple. It also ordered the government to give 5 acres of land inside Ayodhya city limits to the Sunni Waqf Board for the purpose of building a mosque.[8]
2019 12 December All petitions seeking review of the verdict dismissed by the Supreme Court.[109]


References

  1. ↑ Sayyid Shahabuddin Abdur Rahman, Babri Masjid, 3rd print, Azamgarh: Darul Musannifin Shibli Academy, 1987, pp. 29-30.
  2. ↑ Legacy of Muslim Rule in India [archive] Chapter 8
  3. ↑ "Ayodhya dispute: The complex legal history of India's holy site" [archive]. BBC News. 16 October 2019. Retrieved 16 October 2019.
  4. ↑ Gist of Judgements [archive] by Justices S. U. Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and Dharam Veer Sharma, Allahabad High Court, 6 October 2010
  5. ↑ "Ayodhya dispute: The complex legal history of India's holy site" [archive]. BBC News. 16 October 2019. Retrieved 16 October 2019.
  6. ↑ "Supreme Court hearing ends in Ayodhya dispute; orders reserved" [archive]. The Hindu Business Line. Press Trust of India. 2019-10-16. Retrieved 2019-10-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. ↑ "Ayodhya verdict: Supreme Court dismisses Shia Waqf Board's appeal, says land belongs to govt" [archive]. India Today. 9 November 2019.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 "Ram Mandir verdict: Supreme Court verdict on Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case" [archive]. The Times of India. 2019-11-09. Retrieved 2019-11-09.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 "Timeline: Ayodhya holy site crisis" [archive]. BBC News. 6 December 2012.
  10. ↑ "Dispute: claims and counter-claims" [archive]. Thaindian News. Retrieved 29 September 2010.
  11. ↑ The Hindu temple, Volume 1 By Stella Kramrisch, Raymond Burnier [archive]. Google Books. p. 3. Retrieved 2 October 2010.
  12. ↑ "Subject matter of the decided cases" [archive] (PDF). Retrieved 11 June 2012.
  13. ↑ Sayyid Shahabuddin Abdur Rahman, Babri Masjid, 3rd print, Azamgarh: Darul Musannifin Shibli Academy, 1987, pp. 29–30.
  14. ↑ "Baburnama translated by Annette Susannah Beveridge 1922, pp. 120–121" [archive]. Archive.org. 10 March 2001. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
  15. ↑ "Indian Census" [archive]. Censusindia.gov.in. Archived from the original [archive] on 15 October 2010. Retrieved 26 September 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (help)
  16. ↑ http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Mughals/Babar.html [archive]
  17. ↑ "Rama | Hindu deity" [archive]. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2 February 2019.
  18. ↑ "King Dasaratha's four sons" [archive]. bl.uk. Retrieved 2 February 2019.
  19. ↑ Kramrisch, Stella (1976). The Hindu Temple, Volume 1 [archive]. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 3. ISBN 9788120802230.
  20. ↑ van der Veer, Religious Nationalism (1994), p. 218, footnote 48.
  21. ↑ Bakker, Ayodhya, Part I (1984), p. 126.
  22. ↑ Bakker, The rise of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage (1982), p. 112.
  23. ↑ Bakker, The rise of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage (1982), p. 113.
  24. ↑ Bakker, The rise of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage (1982), pp. 113–114.
  25. ↑ Bakker, The rise of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage (1982), pp. 110–112.
  26. ↑ Bakker, Ayodhya, Part I (1984), pp. 126–127, 135–137.
  27. ↑ Flint, Colin (2004). The Geography of War and Peace: From Death Camps to Diplomats [archive]. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195347517.
  28. ↑ Layton & Thomas, Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property (2003), pp. 8–9.
  29. ↑ Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited (2016), Chapter 5.
  30. ↑ Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited (2016), p. 142.
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Jain, Rama and Ayodhya (2013), pp. 114–115.
  32. ↑ Jain, Rama and Ayodhya (2013), p. 116.
  33. ↑ Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited (2016), pp. xvi.
  34. ↑ van der Veer (1992), pp. 97–98, footnote 25.
  35. ↑ "Tracing The History Of Babri Masjid" [archive]. Outlook. 1 December 2017.
  36. ↑ 15th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1986, entry "Ayodhya", Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.
  37. ↑ e.g. Romila Thapar. Tom Bottomore: Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Blackwell, Oxford 1988, entry “Hinduism”.
  38. ↑ Sharma, Dharam Veer, Ram JanmBhoomi Babri Masjid Judgement – Annexure IV – Page 129 to 162 [archive] (PDF), pp. 129–162, retrieved 15 April 2011
  39. ↑ P. Carnegy: A Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad, Lucknow 1870, cited by Harsh Narain The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, 1993, New Delhi, Penman Publications. ISBN 81-85504-16-4 pp. 8-9, and by Peter Van der Veer Religious Nationalism, p. 153.
  40. ↑ The Truth of Babri Mosque [archive]. IUniverse.com. 2012. p. 184. ISBN 1475942893.
  41. ↑ Islam, Arshad. "Babri Mosque: A Historic Bone Of Contention." Muslim World 97.2 (2007): 259-286. Academic Search Elite. Web. 23 September 2012.
  42. ↑ Gumaste, Vivek (17 September 2010). "Can court verdict resolve Ayodhya dispute?" [archive]. Rediff News. Archived from the original [archive] on 20 September 2010. Retrieved 28 September 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (help)
  43. ↑ Anatomy of a confrontation: the rise ... [archive] Google Books. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
  44. ↑ Jain 2012, pp. 3-5.
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 Bakker, Hans (1982). "The rise of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage". Indo-Iranian Journal. 24 (2): 103–126.
  46. ↑ Paramasivan, Vasudha (2009). "Yah Ayodhya Vah Ayodhya: Earthly and Cosmic Journeys in the Anand-lahari". In Heidi R. M. Pauwels (ed.). Patronage and Popularisation, Pilgrimage and Procession. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. pp. 101–116. ISBN 3447057238.
  47. ↑ Ghaffar (1981), pp. 61–62 quoted in Narain, The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute (1993), pp. 31–32
  48. ↑ Sita Ram (1932), p. 151 quoted in Narain, The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute (1993), p. 33 and Dharam Veer Sharma (2010), vol. 2, para. 17 (p. 281)
  49. ↑ van der Veer, 'God must be Liberated!' (1987), p. 286; van der Veer (1989), pp. 20–21
  50. ↑ Narain, The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute (1993), pp. 33–34.
  51. ↑ Narain, The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute (1993), p. 34.
  52. ↑ Jain, Rama and Ayodhya (2013); van der Veer, 'God must be Liberated!' (1987), p. 286
  53. ↑ Jain, Rama and Ayodhya (2013), pp. 165–166.
  54. ↑ Narain, The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute (1993), p. 17; Jain, Rama and Ayodhya (2013), p. 166
  55. ↑ 55.0 55.1 Layton & Thomas, Destruction and Conservation (2003), p. 8; Jain, Rama and Ayodhya (2013), pp. 9, 120, 164
  56. ↑ Ghaffar 1981, pp. 61-62 quoted in Narain 1993, pp. 31-32
  57. ↑ Sita Ram 1932, p. 151 quoted in Narain 1993, p. 33 and Allahabad High Court 2010, vol. 4, p. 281
  58. ↑ van der Veer 1989, pp. 20-21.
  59. ↑ Narain 1993, pp. 33-34.
  60. ↑ Narain 1993, p. 34.
  61. ↑ Jain 2012, pp. 165-166.
  62. ↑ Narain 1993, p. 17.
  63. ↑ Jain 2012, p. 166.
  64. ↑ Jain 2012, p. 9, 120, 164.
  65. ↑ Narain 1993, pp. 23-25.
  66. ↑ Layton & Thomas 2003, p. 8.
  67. ↑ Jain 2012, pp. 112-114.
  68. ↑ Jain 2012, pp. 120-121.
  69. ↑ Some scholars argue that whatever Babur constructed was abandoned and was in ruins by the time of Akbar, and Hindus continued to worship there. The mosque seen in present times must have been constructed by Aurangzeb.
  70. ↑ Jain 2012, p. 121.
  71. ↑ Layton & Thomas 2003, pp. 8-9.
  72. ↑ "Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple", 1989 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry "Ayodhya".{Template:Fact}
  73. ↑ e.g. Romila Thapar. Tom Bottomore: Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Blackwell, Oxford 1988, entry “Hinduism”.
  74. ↑ http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/22ayo.htm [archive]
  75. ↑ 75.0 75.1 http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/25ayo1.htm [archive]
  76. ↑ Ali (preface by Irfan Habib), M.Athar (2008). Mughal India. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-569661-5.
  77. ↑ "How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause" [archive]. Retrieved 3 July 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (help)
  78. ↑ The Hindu, Praveen Togadia cited atFight secular Hindus, says Singhal [archive] February 08, 2003
  79. ↑ Naipaul, V.S, Beyond belief:Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples,Vintage Books,1998
  80. ↑ Naipaul V.S. India, a million Mutinies now, Penguin 1992
  81. ↑ "Ancient Temple Found Beneath Disputed Mosque" [archive]. About.com. Archived from the original [archive] on 18 November 2012. Retrieved 20 December 2012.
  82. ↑ 82.0 82.1 R. Prasannan (7 September 2003). "Layers of truth" [archive]. The Week. Archived from the original [archive] on 23 March 2005.
  83. ↑ "Evidence of temple found: ASI" [archive]. The Tribune. 2003-08-25.
  84. ↑ Sikand, Yoginder (5 August 2006). "Ayodhya's Forgotten Muslim Past" [archive]. Counter Currents. Archived [archive] from the original on 21 December 2007.
  85. ↑ Ali, M. Athar (2008). Mughal India. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-569661-5.
  86. ↑ 86.0 86.1 "How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause" [archive]. The Times of India. 9 October 2010.
  87. ↑ Nitish K. Singh (16 January 2011). "Buddhist body lays claim to the disputed Ayodhya site" [archive]. Sunday Guardian.
  88. ↑ Suryamurthy, R (26 August 2003). "ASI findings may not resolve title dispute" [archive]. The Tribune.
  89. ↑ Prasannan, R. (7 September 2003) "Ayodhya: Layers of truth" [archive] The Week (India), from Web Archive
  90. ↑ "Proof of temple found at Ayodhya: ASI report" [archive]. Rediff.com. 25 August 2003.
  91. ↑ "Issues For Briefing" [archive] (PDF). Allahabad High Court. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
  92. ↑ http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?268602 [archive]
  93. ↑ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/blast-a-revenge-for-babri-mail/361167/1 [archive]
  94. ↑ http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MARP,,BGD,,469f3869c,0.html [archive]
  95. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named guardianarchieve
  96. ↑ http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MRGI,,BGD,,49749d572d,0.html [archive]
  97. ↑ 'Timeline: Ayodhya crisis' [archive], BBC News, 17 October 2003.
  98. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Tieffenthaler
  99. ↑ "1990 decision to order firing on 'kar sevaks' painful, Mulayam Singh Yadav says" [archive]. The Times of India. 16 July 2013.
  100. ↑ "Mulayam warns rioters, recalls order to shoot kar sevaks" [archive]. The Times of India. 1 November 2013. Retrieved 18 August 2014.
  101. ↑ "Mulayam indulging in votebank politics through Ayodhya Kar Sevak firing comment: JD (U)" [archive]. Business Standard News. 16 July 2013.
  102. ↑ "Taming of the VHP" [archive]. Frontline. 22 October 2003.
  103. ↑ Venkatesan, J. (28 September 2010). "Ayodhya verdict tomorrow" [archive]. The Hindu. Chennai, India. Archived [archive] from the original on 1 October 2010.
  104. ↑ "Hindu Mahasabha moves SC against part of Ayodhya verdict" [archive]. The Indian Express. 29 December 2010.
  105. ↑ "Sunni Waqf Board moves Supreme Court against high court's Ayodhya order" [archive]. Dnaindia.com. 15 December 2010.
  106. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named :0
  107. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Ayodhya case: SC concludes hearing
  108. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named timesofindia.indiatimes.com
  109. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named :1

Wikipedia bias and censorship

The article is protected which is done to discourage new editors to balance or counter the obvious bias and fake news in "their" wikipedia article.

see also

Further reading

  • Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor. 1996. Edited, translated and annotated by Wheeler M. Thacktson. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
  • The Ayodhya Reference: Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries. 1995. New Delhi:Voice of India.
  • Ayodhya and the Future of India. 1993. Edited by Jitendra Bajaj. Madras: Centre for Policy Studies.
  • Elst, Koenraad. 1991. Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society. 1991. New Delhi: Voice of India. [5] [archive]
  • Elst, Koenraad, Ayodhya, The Finale - Science versus Secularism the Excavations Debate (2003) ISBN 81-85990-77-8
  • Elst, Koenraad, Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple (2002) ISBN 81-85990-75-1
  • Emmanuel, Dominic. 'The Mumbai bomb blasts and the Ayodhya tangle', National Catholic Reporter (Kansas City, August 27 2003).
  • Sita Ram Goel: Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them, Voice of India, Delhi 1991. [6] [archive] [7] [archive]
  • Harsh Narain. 1993. The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers.
  • R. Nath. Babari Masjid of Ayodhya, Jaipur 1991.
  • Rajaram, N.S. (2000). Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New Delhi: Voice of India
  • Thakur Prasad Varma and Swarajya Prakash Gupta: Ayodhya ka Itihas evam Puratattva— Rigveda kal se ab tak (‘History and Archaeology of Ayodhya— From the Time of the Rigveda to the Present’). Bharatiya Itihasa evam Samskrit Parishad and DK Printworld. New Delhi.
  • Thapar, Romila. 'A Historical Perspective on the Story of Rama' in Thapar (2000).
  • Thapar, Romila. Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History (New Delhi: Oxford University, 2000) ISBN 0-19-564050-0.
  • Ayodhya ka Itihas evam Puratattva— Rigveda kal se ab tak (‘History and Archaeology of Ayodhya— From the Time of the Rigveda to the Present’) by Thakur Prasad Varma and Swarajya Prakash Gupta. Bharatiya Itihasa evam Samskrit Parishad and DK Printworld. New Delhi. (An important work on the archaeology of the temple.)
  • History versus Casuistry: Evidence of the Ramajanmabhoomi Mandir presented by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to the Government of India in December-January 1990-91. New Delhi: Voice of India.
  • Lal, B. B. (2003). "A note on the excavations at Ayodhya with reference to the Mandir-Masjid issue". In Layton, R.; Stone, P.; Thomas, J. (eds.). Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 117–126. ISBN 1134604971.
  • Jain, Meenakshi (2013), Rama and Ayodhya, New Delhi: Aryan Books, ISBN 978-8173054518
  • Kunal, Kishore (2016), Ayodhya Revisited [archive], Prabhat Prakashan, pp. 335–, ISBN 978-81-8430-357-5
  • Lal, B. B. (2008). Rāma, His Historicity, Mandir, and Setu: Evidence of Literature, Archaeology, and Other Sciences [archive]. Aryan Books. ISBN 978-81-7305-345-0.
    • Lal, B. B. (2003). "A note on the excavations at Ayodhya with reference to the Mandir-Masjid issue". In Layton, R.; Stone, P.; Thomas, J. (eds.). Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 117–126. ISBN 978-1134604975.
  • Nath, R. (1990). Babari Masjid of Ayodhya. Jaipur: The Historical Research Documentation program.
  • Dubashi, Jay (1992). The Road to Ayodhya. Delhi: South Asia Books.
  • Elst, Koenraad (1990). Ram Janmabhoomi Vs Babri Masjid [archive]. New Delhi: Voice of India.
  • Elst, Koenraad (1991). Ayodhya and after: issues before Hindu society [archive]. Voice of India.
  • Elst, Koenraad (2002). Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple [archive]. Voice of India. ISBN 9788185990750.
  • Jain, Meenakshi The Battle for Rama: Case of the Temple at Ayodhya (Aryan Books International, 2017), ISBN 8173055793.
  • Rajaram, N. S. (2000). Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New Delhi: Voice of India.
  • Arun Shourie, Arun Jaitley, Swapan Dasgupta, Rama J Jois: The Ayodhya Reference: Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries. 1995. New Delhi: Voice of India. ISBN 978-8185990309
  • Arun Shourie, Sita Ram Goel, Harsh Narain, Jay Dubashi and Ram Swarup. Hindu Temples – What Happened to Them Vol. I, (A Preliminary Survey) (1990) ISBN 81-85990-49-2
  • Varma, Thakur Prasad; Gupta, Swarajya Prakash. Ayodhya ka Itihas evam Puratattva – Rigveda kal se ab tak (History and Archaeology of Ayodhya – From the Time of the Rigveda to the Present) (in Hindi). New Delhi: Bharatiya Itihasa evam Samskrit Parishad and DK Printworld.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  • History versus Casuistry: Evidence of the Ramajanmabhoomi Mandir presented by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to the Government of India in December 1990 – January 1991. New Delhi: Voice of India.


Anuradha Dutt and S. Kumar: The Restoration of Ayodhya, 2020)

In fiction

Sources

This article includes modified content derived from Wikipedia. See source [8] [archive]

links

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/bjp-mp-diya-kumari-claims-her-family-descended-from-lord-ram-s-son-kush/816476.html [archive]


Cite error: <ref> tags exist for a group named "note", but no corresponding <references group="note"/> tag was found

Retrieved from "https://en.dharmapedia.net/w/index.php?title=Ayodhya_debate&oldid=84057"